15 ms·

USSR bred reasonably well up until its breakup without religion. You don't necessarily need religion in order to wish to continue yourself beyond your lifetime.

cm2187 4y ago
I believe the USSR had a fairly conservative stance on those issues, favouring families. It's not religion but it is still social pressure.
- jojobas 4y ago
  Nothing wrong with social pressure to do the right thing.
  - cm2187 4y ago
    And I am not saying it is wrong, but it is a form of social conservatism.
  - Bancakes 4y ago
    Society very rarely knows what the right thing is. Hence why the USSR existed in the first place post Lenin.
    - jojobas 4y ago
      Unless you have a good reason to believe otherwise, your ancestors did the right thing, for anything they did. USSR lasted that long because some people made themselves a very good repressive machine very early on.
      - Bancakes 4y ago
        That’s survivorship bias. My ancestors wanted a good life for themselves, and many of them suffered different despots and sultans. They would go to war to defend their country, but not when the enemy is the ruler himself. My ancestors were wrongly conditioned to think life has to be rough, that one must suffer through. A great deal of those who opposed rulers profiting from this, were eliminated.
        jojobas 4y ago
        Mimicking what survivors did is a reasonable strategy. You don't know why but it works. Again, if you realise some of what they did didn't actually contribute to their survival it qualifies as a good reason not to do it.
- unity1001 4y ago
  The USSR's advantage was that everyone's life was guaranteed all the way from the start and without overwork. You went to your job at 15 min. walking distance (entire cities were planned that way) in the morning, worked from 9 to 5 without having to overwork, got back home in 15 min, at the same time your children came back home from state-funded schools as your wife got grocieries for the dinner at lowest cost. (until the economic war started by the US and its Gulf Allies in the 80s). You had paid vacations, paid maternity/paternity leave, reasonable working hours, reasonable retirement age, free social clubs, hobby clubs, everything. And the most critical point: Your children were also entitled to ALL of that from birth. They were going to study in state schools, they would get a job somewhere, they would work under the same conditions, they would acquire their first car and their first flat around the same age, and if they married, not only the state would help them marry but also provide more incentives. So there was absolutely no reason to hesitate from having children - you had the money, energy, resources, and on top of that the state guaranteed that your children would be well set from the moment they born. Hence, population boomed. The USSR is not unique in that aspect. In every period of society, when people's and their childrens' lives are guaranteed, population boomed. The sociopathic profiteering in capitalist societies crippling everything including birth rates seems more like a case of natural selection when seen in that light - these countries have all the money and power in the world to stop the population decline and reverse it, but they just dont want to do it for the sake of profit...
  - jojobas 4y ago
    You could try peddling that to those who never lived in the USSR. Nothing was guaranteed, everything had to be fought for, even food. You were at the mercy of the local party boss, one careless word could cost you your career, not just in one company but in the whole country (goes without saying that you couldn't move to another). Paternity leave is something new, never have heard a lie that blatant. Also anything "free" of course wasn't, The Soviet government was the ultimate capitalist, appropriating all fruits of all labour and keeping people at "just above rioting" living standard by design, and sometimes failing even at that.
    - unity1001 4y ago
ciphol 4y ago
USSR was poor, we're talking about rich countries.
- jojobas 4y ago
  It was poor, but not that poor.
dhruval 4y ago
Maybe social structure of some sort is responsible ? I am not sure just looking at the patterns I see in developed countries.
medvezhenok 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_on_childlessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_on_childlessness Childless people between 20-50, both men and women, paid an extra 6% in taxes to the state.
- jojobas 4y ago
  This is no different from getting taxes from everyone and paying child benefits.
  - medvezhenok 4y ago
    Practically, yes - it's more-or-less equivalent. Psychologically, I'm not so sure. Loss aversion is a much stronger than not getting a benefit (think about not getting your bonus versus taking a pay-cut at work; even if the amounts are the same, I doubt you would feel the same about it) - so I think the explicit tax on childlessness would be more influential because of that.

cm2187 4y ago

I believe the USSR had a fairly conservative stance on those issues, favouring families. It's not religion but it is still social pressure.

jojobas 4y ago
Nothing wrong with social pressure to do the right thing.
- cm2187 4y ago
  And I am not saying it is wrong, but it is a form of social conservatism.
- Bancakes 4y ago
  Society very rarely knows what the right thing is. Hence why the USSR existed in the first place post Lenin.
  - jojobas 4y ago
    Unless you have a good reason to believe otherwise, your ancestors did the right thing, for anything they did. USSR lasted that long because some people made themselves a very good repressive machine very early on.
    - Bancakes 4y ago
      That’s survivorship bias. My ancestors wanted a good life for themselves, and many of them suffered different despots and sultans. They would go to war to defend their country, but not when the enemy is the ruler himself. My ancestors were wrongly conditioned to think life has to be rough, that one must suffer through. A great deal of those who opposed rulers profiting from this, were eliminated.
      - jojobas 4y ago
        Mimicking what survivors did is a reasonable strategy. You don't know why but it works. Again, if you realise some of what they did didn't actually contribute to their survival it qualifies as a good reason not to do it.
unity1001 4y ago
The USSR's advantage was that everyone's life was guaranteed all the way from the start and without overwork. You went to your job at 15 min. walking distance (entire cities were planned that way) in the morning, worked from 9 to 5 without having to overwork, got back home in 15 min, at the same time your children came back home from state-funded schools as your wife got grocieries for the dinner at lowest cost. (until the economic war started by the US and its Gulf Allies in the 80s). You had paid vacations, paid maternity/paternity leave, reasonable working hours, reasonable retirement age, free social clubs, hobby clubs, everything. And the most critical point: Your children were also entitled to ALL of that from birth. They were going to study in state schools, they would get a job somewhere, they would work under the same conditions, they would acquire their first car and their first flat around the same age, and if they married, not only the state would help them marry but also provide more incentives. So there was absolutely no reason to hesitate from having children - you had the money, energy, resources, and on top of that the state guaranteed that your children would be well set from the moment they born. Hence, population boomed. The USSR is not unique in that aspect. In every period of society, when people's and their childrens' lives are guaranteed, population boomed. The sociopathic profiteering in capitalist societies crippling everything including birth rates seems more like a case of natural selection when seen in that light - these countries have all the money and power in the world to stop the population decline and reverse it, but they just dont want to do it for the sake of profit...
- jojobas 4y ago
  You could try peddling that to those who never lived in the USSR. Nothing was guaranteed, everything had to be fought for, even food. You were at the mercy of the local party boss, one careless word could cost you your career, not just in one company but in the whole country (goes without saying that you couldn't move to another). Paternity leave is something new, never have heard a lie that blatant. Also anything "free" of course wasn't, The Soviet government was the ultimate capitalist, appropriating all fruits of all labour and keeping people at "just above rioting" living standard by design, and sometimes failing even at that.
  - unity1001 4y ago

ciphol 4y ago

USSR was poor, we're talking about rich countries.

jojobas 4y ago
It was poor, but not that poor.

dhruval 4y ago

Maybe social structure of some sort is responsible ? I am not sure just looking at the patterns I see in developed countries.

medvezhenok 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_on_childlessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_on_childlessness Childless people between 20-50, both men and women, paid an extra 6% in taxes to the state.

jojobas 4y ago
This is no different from getting taxes from everyone and paying child benefits.
- medvezhenok 4y ago
  Practically, yes - it's more-or-less equivalent. Psychologically, I'm not so sure. Loss aversion is a much stronger than not getting a benefit (think about not getting your bonus versus taking a pay-cut at work; even if the amounts are the same, I doubt you would feel the same about it) - so I think the explicit tax on childlessness would be more influential because of that.